app_store_versions__build__get

Does the description disclose side effects, auth requirements, rate limits, or destructive behavior?

The annotations already declare readOnlyHint=true, idempotentHint=true, and destructiveHint=false, which convey the safety profile. The description adds the specific endpoint scoping (the build associated with a version) and the HTTP method. However, it doesn't note that the response includes typical App Store Connect API fields, pagination, or that the 'id' must come from a list call. With annotations covering the core behavioral traits, a 3 is appropriate—it adds context about the resource relationship but not additional behavioral caveats.

Agents need to know what a tool does to the world before calling it. Descriptions should go beyond structured annotations to explain consequences.

Is the description appropriately sized, front-loaded, and free of redundancy?

The description is a single sentence plus an endpoint reference. It is optimally concise, front-loading the main action ('Read the build for an App Store version.') and including the exact HTTP path for developers. No wasted words.

Shorter descriptions cost fewer tokens and are easier for agents to parse. Every sentence should earn its place.

Given the tool's complexity, does the description cover enough for an agent to succeed on first attempt?

Given the tool has one parameter, a simple read operation, and high schema coverage, the description is nearly sufficient. However, for agents navigating the large sibling list, it would benefit from noting that this is the counterpart to app_store_versions__build__set, and that the id is an appStoreVersion id (the schema already says this). The output schema is absent, but for a simple read, the description is reasonably complete. It still leaves a small gap regarding the expected output shape, but for a GET tool, that may be implicitly understood.

Complex tools with many parameters or behaviors need more documentation. Simple tools need less. This dimension scales expectations accordingly.

Does the description clarify parameter syntax, constraints, interactions, or defaults beyond what the schema provides?

Schema coverage is 100%: the only parameter 'id' has a description 'ID from the matching list call.' The description's path /v1/appStoreVersions/{id}/build adds meaning by indicating the id belongs to the appStoreVersion. The parameter description in the schema already says it comes from a list call. The tool description doesn't need to repeat the parameter details; the schema handles it well.

Input schemas describe structure but not intent. Descriptions should explain non-obvious parameter relationships and valid value ranges.

Does the description clearly state what the tool does and how it differs from similar tools?

The description states the verb 'Read' and the resource 'the build for an App Store version'. It clearly indicates this is a GET operation to fetch a build associated with a specific App Store version. It is distinguishable from siblings like app_store_versions__build__set (which writes) and builds__app_store_version__get (which fetches the app store version for a build), though it doesn't explicitly name them.

Agents choose between tools based on descriptions. A clear purpose with a specific verb and resource helps agents select the right tool.

Does the description explain when to use this tool, when not to, or what alternatives exist?

The description includes the HTTP method and path pattern, implying it is for retrieving a build linked to an App Store version. It does not explicitly state when to use this over alternatives, but the verb 'Read' and the path indicate its read-only nature. Given the sibling list includes many related tools, the description could be clearer about when to choose this vs. builds__app_store_version__get, but the endpoint structure gives reasonable context.

Agents often have multiple tools that could apply. Explicit usage guidance like "use X instead of Y when Z" prevents misuse.